Key result
A nurse-led, multidisciplinary home-based intervention significantly prolonged event-free survival, achieving 90.1% days-alive and out-of-hospital compared to 87.2% with standard management.
Why the study?
Does a nurse-led, multidisciplinary home-based intervention improve days-alive and out-of-hospital in hospitalized patients with chronic heart disease?
Does a nurse-led, multidisciplinary home-based intervention improve days-alive and out-of-hospital in hospitalized patients with chronic heart disease?
A nurse-led, multidisciplinary home-based intervention significantly improves event-free survival and reduces all-cause mortality across a broad spectrum of patients hospitalized for chronic heart disease.
Supports routine post-discharge use in chronic heart disease; extends RCT evidence for event-free survival gains.
BACKGROUND: We sought to determine the overall impact of a nurse-led, multidisciplinary home-based intervention (HBI) adapted to hospitalized patients with chronic forms of heart disease of varying types. METHODS AND RESULTS: Prospectively planned, combined, secondary analysis of 3 randomized trials (1226 patients) of HBI were compared with standard management. Hospitalized patients presenting with heart disease but not heart failure, atrial fibrillation but not heart failure, and heart failure, as well, were recruited. Overall, 612 and 614 patients, respectively, were allocated to a home visit 7 to 14 days postdischarge by a cardiac nurse with follow-up and multidisciplinary support according to clinical need or standard management. The primary outcome of days-alive and out-of-hospital was examined on an intention-to-treat basis. During 1371 days (interquartile range, 1112-1605) of follow-up, 218 patients died and 17 917 days of hospital stay were recorded. In comparison with standard management, HBI patients achieved significantly prolonged event-free survival (90.1% [95% confidence interval, 88.2-92.0] versus 87.2% [95% confidence interval, 85.1-89.3] days-alive and out-of-hospital; P=0.020). This reflected less all-cause mortality (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.67; 95% confidence interval, 0.50-0.88; P=0.005) and unplanned hospital stay (median, 0.22 [interquartile range, 0-1.3] versus 0.36 [0-2.1] days/100 days follow-up; P=0.011). Analyses of the differential impact of HBI on all-cause mortality showed significant interactions (characterized by U-shaped relationships) with age (P=0.005) and comorbidity (P=0.041); HBI was most effective for those aged 60 to 82 years (59%-65% of individual trial cohorts) and with a Charlson Comorbidity Index Score of 5 to 8 (36%-61%). CONCLUSIONS: These data provide further support for the application of postdischarge HBI across the full spectrum of patients being hospitalized for chronic forms of heart disease. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL: http://www.anzctr.org.au. Unique identifiers: 12610000221055, 12608000022369, 12607000069459.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Stewart et al. (2016) studied Chronic heart disease (n=1,226). Nurse-led, multidisciplinary home-based intervention (HBI) vs. Standard management was evaluated on Days-alive and out-of-hospital (DAOH) (p=0.020). A nurse-led, multidisciplinary home-based intervention significantly prolonged event-free survival, achieving 90.1% days-alive and out-of-hospital compared to 87.2% with standard management.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: